November 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council Agenda 6 December 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Nov. 28, 2007

Nov. 28, 2007

[To:council@gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the GNSO Council agenda for Thursday 6 December 2007 at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-06dec07.shtml posted on pages: http://gnso.icann.org/ http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec Coordinated Universal Time UTC 15:00 - see below for local times (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 16:00 Brussels, 23:00 Hong Kong) Avri Doria will be chairing the GNSO Council meeting Scheduled time for meeting 120 mins. Dial-in numbers sent to Council members. Review/Approve Agenda (5) Item 0: Roll call of Council members Item 1: Update any statements of interest (5 mins) Item 2 - Approve Nominating Committee job description (10 mins) Review copy sent to GNSO mailing list by 30 Nov 07 Item 3 - Status update on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Planning Group (10 mins) Item 4 - 'Whois Studies' (10 mins) - Set up team to create a studies suggestion form http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ 20071031-3 "Part 3 of the resolution: Recognizes the demand for future policy development including, but not limited to, ensuring appropriate privacy safeguards for natural persons, lawful access to data for rights enforcement, consumer protection, law enforcement and anti-crime purposes and will immediately initiate the following sequential actions: 1) Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements 2) staff shall provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies no later than February 15th, 2008; 3) the Council will decide what data gathering and studies would be pursued; and 4) staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results back to the Council." Item 5 - IDNC and new ccTLD allocation issues discussion (30 mins) References: Board Resolution http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-02nov07.htm#_Toc55609363 IDNC Charter http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-charter.htm a. - description of the issue b. - report on GNSO chair exchange with ccNSO chair c. - report on any preparatory meeting that may have been held d. - consider a formal request to ICANN Board for clarification on whether they approved the details of the ccNSO charter (i.e. only 2 gNSO representatives) or were approving a balanced and equal participation as the resolution (07.89) itself seems to indicate. e. - consider a request to ask Board to consider opening IDNC to equitable particpation f. - discuss need to determine current gNSO position on creating IDN ccTLDs and its relation to the GSNO ccNSO.GAC question repsonses g. - status of the reworking of the GNSO question responses Item 6 - Chose representative selection for IDNC (30 mins) This part of the meeting may be closed since it will involve discussion of candidates for the 2 open positions on the IDNC a. Decide on closing and halting the recording for this part of the meeting b. Discuss candidates and pick 2 as required by the current IDNC charter Item 7 - Action Item Review (10 mins) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.pdf Item 8 - AOB (5 mins) (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 16:00 Brussels, 23:00 Hong Kong) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8-0DST 07:00 Cedar Rapids, Iowa,USA (CST) UTC-6-0DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 10:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil UTC-2+1DST 13:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00 Brussels, Belgium (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Karlsruhe, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Barcelona, Spain (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Oslo, Norway (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Amman, Jordan UTC+2+0DST 17:00 Dubai UTC+4+0DST 19:00 Phnom Penh, Cambodia UTC+7+0DST 22:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Singapore, Singapore UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Melbourne, Australia (EST) UTC+10+1DST 02:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2008, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards; Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
by Tim Ruiz Nov. 28, 2007

Nov. 28, 2007

Just boarding for a 10 hr flight so likely my last opportunity to comment on this. I would support Tom's suggestion. Being willing to give WGs a try is not really support for recommendation. We should be clear about all views on this. Tim Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: AW: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform > From: "Thomas Keller" <tom(a)1und1.de> > Date: Tue, November 27, 2007 3:01 am > To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>, "'Council > GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Hi Philip, > > as I just wrote in my last mail. I do > not think that we are in unanimous > agreement of the recommendation > therefore we should strike it from the > list. > > tom > ___________________________________ > Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im > Auftrag von Philip Sheppard > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2007 > 09:45 > An: 'Council GNSO' > Betreff: [council] Draft reply Council > on GNSO reform > If I read Council right (thanks Chuck, > Avri, Adrian), > I will amend to "qualified support" > where I previously wrote "partial > support". > > I think we are all on the same page > here. > (Chuck we are not advocating task forces > here just laying down a marker for > flexibility which I note you support). > > Philip

7 8

Transfer issues PDP, Request for appointment of constituency representatives and for constituency statements
by Olof Nordling Nov. 28, 2007

Nov. 28, 2007

To the GNSO Constituency Chairs: Dear all, A PDP on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues was launched through the adoption of a resolution at the 20 November GNSO Council meeting. See below for the resolution text. This PDP will be conducted with "a committee of the whole" and there is a link to the Issues Report for the matter in the resolution text below. I draw your attention to the requirements to appoint a representative of your constituency (formally within ten days, meaning deadline 30 November) and to submit a constituency statement on the subject matter within 35 days, i.e. no later than 25 December 2007. Very best regards Olof GNSO resolution text: "Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Resolution Whereas the issues report on Inter-Registrar Transfers http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/issues-report-transfer-denial-clarifi cations-19oct07.pdf has been released and discussed The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the Issues Report by the Staff."

1 0

Personal concerns about GNSO reponse to ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues
by Avri Doria Nov. 28, 2007

Nov. 28, 2007

Hi, Part of today's conversation involves a discussion on whether we are ready to vote on our recommendations at our next meeting. During the LA meeting, I pretty much kept my viewpoints out of the discussion because I was concerned with accurately reflecting the state of discussion in the council. At this point I would like to add my personal opinions to the discussion. I am uncomfortable with many of the proposals we are making and decided I should send in a note prior to the meeting on some of the issues that most concern me. In general I believe our answers give the governments and the ccNSO a unconstrained slate on which they can designate as many names as they wish as being in ccTLD space. From various conversations I have been involved in, this could come to mean something as broad as: - every possible name of a country or territory's name - in every possible script/ language - including all possible variants We have also heard discussions that indicate that if one country needs a certain number of ccTLDs, then obviously, for the sake of fairness, every country needs the same number. As it currently stands, I cannot vote to approve our current statement. Some of my specific issues: > b) Could there be several IDN strings for a ‘territory’ in a > script? If so, who would > determine the number and what are the criteria? > > Proposed GNSO response: If multiple scripts are used in a territory > and if it is > judged that those scripts will add value to the user experience, > then the sovereign > government should make the choice of which scripts and what number > of scripts > will be in use for IDN ccTLDs. > I am not sure that we actually answered the question in this one. I do not read the question as asking about multiple scripts, but rather read it as asking about multiple names in a single script. I think that this would be problematic, as this would give license for a multitude of names might be in general use for a territory or country. E.g in the US, we have US, USA, UnitedStates, UnitedStatesofAmerica, TheStates, America, LandoftheFreeHomeoftheBrave etc... Should all of these be designated as ccTLDs. and should they all be designated in all scripts/languages that are used, and even only those officially designated in at least one of the states, in the US? If we extrapolate this for all countries/territories, all variants and all scripts/languages, we will find that a very large chunk of the name spaces been being assigned to the ccNSO and to government control. Is this something the GNSO is comfortable with? > Should a list of IDN ccTLD strings be mandated? > > In the US-ASCII case, ccTLD strings are currently primfarily based > on the ISO 3166-1 > Alpha 2 list. If a similar mechanism were adopted for IDN ccTLDs, > this could mean that > every ISO 3166 entry would have an equivalent IDN ccTLD string(s) > to represent it. > > a) Is such a list necessary? > > Proposed GNSO response: Probably not. Would such a list result in > an earlier > ability to meet the needs of non-English users? If so, it would > seem to be a good > idea. If not, then it seems like the higher priority should be to > meet user needs > and, if that can be done without a list, that might be the better > approach. If the list > avoided conflicts and confusion, it might be needed (e.g., in > situations where > there are reports of conflicts and confusion among ccTLD members > themselves > or where there are reports of such conflicts and confusion from > traditional > standards bodies like the ISO). As was shown in the conversation we had in LA, the lack of a list, may mean that an implicit definition will be used that may open up the possibility of an indefinitely large number of potential names being designated as ccTLD space. Is this something the GNSO is comfortable with? > e) Who would develop the criteria and relevant policies for > identifying IDN ccTLDs? > > Proposed GNSO response: The ccNSO is the policy making body for > ccTLDs. It > seems like the appropriate body for this task with appropriate > input from the > broader community within ICANN and with input from the abovementioned > non-ICANN entities to establish the legitimacy of the process and > the outcome. I read this as saying that the GSNO agrees that deciding whether a string belongs in ccTLD space is a decision that is made by the ccNSO. Without pre-established constraints, there is no limit to what might be deemed an appropriate IDN ccTLD. I don't see how we can agree to a formulation that is this open. a.

6 6

RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
by Tim Ruiz Nov. 27, 2007

Nov. 27, 2007

Chuck, it would be qualified support at best. I am not convinced of the WG model yet. We have very little experience with it as a primary policy development mechanism, and what experience we do have I am not that impressed with. So the proof is in the eating of the pudding. We need to define how WGs should be structured and operate and then try it out, and refine as necessary. Until we know that WGs can be consistently effective I don't see them as any better, or worse, than the Task Force model. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Mon, November 26, 2007 3:31 pm To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Please translate Tim. Where are you at on this one? Support? Partial Support? Qualidfied Support? Other? Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 4:04 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform I'm not sure I am ready to jump on to the unanimous bandwagon on this one. Conferring with my Constituency peers. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Mon, November 26, 2007 1:35 pm To: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> So we are sayiing "we unanimously partially support the recommendation"? Sounds a little confusing to me. At the same time, note that in my response to Philip just sent a couple minutes ago, I suggested "Qualified Support". I think it may be an improvement to say "we unanimously support a recommendation with qualifications". Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:11 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform Hi, I thought that the partial support meant that we, as a group, had reservations that were expressed in the included statements. In the preface we say the the level os support an unanimous. So partial support does not refer to the level of support in the council but rather to the degree to which we unanimously support the recommendation as written in the BWG draft. a. On 26 nov 2007, at 15.57, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Thanks again Philip. This is looking very good in my opinion, but I still have a four areas of concern. 3. All policy is developed in working groups in place of task forces of Council. I still don't understand what positive elements in the current task force model would be excluded in a working group model. I would appreciate some explanation here. For the moment at least, I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support". I have no problem emphasizing the need to include flexibility in the WG model but do not support the suggestion to include 'task forces'. 3.2 Steps to improve effectiveness/ efficiency: proposals for running working groups. Why only "Partial Support" for this? I think we should say "Support". 4.1b Amend the bylaws to clarify the limited set of "consensus policies" upon which the GNSO may make change. I think we should say "Support", not "Partial Support". 5.2 Steps to improve effectiveness. The monitoring / oversight role of Council. Why only "Partial Support" for this? I think we should say "Support". Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:18 PM To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform Thank you very much Philip for the very quick turn-around on this and for a job very well done. I inserted my comments in the attached document. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:04 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform As agreed on yesterday's Council call, I promised to draft a short paper as a "straw man" listing those recommendations on GNSO reform that may be supportable by Council as a whole. Given the deadline is submission by 30 November I thought I'd better get a move on. Not surprisingly those listed are ones seeking: - improvements in policy development and timeline flexibility, - improvements in communications, - improvements in outreach - greater support for constituencies. I have left out proposals on structural change suspecting we will have differing views. On working groups, I am proposing a partial support, suspecting we mostly feel they will work for much policy work, but that tying our hands to have ONLY working groups for EVERY issue before us would be too inflexible. I hope I have captured areas of potential agreement. Your first comments please by November 25 after which time I'll edit a proposed final version. Comments can be as simple as - "yes I/we support" or can be proposals to strike one of the proposed areas of agreement. In that case, a word of explanation would be good to share. Philip

2 1

Council Rework Team for ccTLD IDN Questions
by Gomes, Chuck Nov. 27, 2007

Nov. 27, 2007

In our last Council meeting we agreed to form a small group lead by me to rework the draft responses to the questions asked in the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. So far, the following have volunteered: Belal Beirm, BC Edmon Chung, RyC Olga Cavalli, Nom Com Rep Avri Doria, NomCom Rep Chuck Gomes, Chair My understanding is that the NCUC will be providing a name shortly. Other Constituencies may propose volunteers as well. It would be helpful if I could have any additional names NLT Wednesday of this week, 28 November. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

2 2

RE: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
by Tim Ruiz Nov. 27, 2007

Nov. 27, 2007

4 4

Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
by Philip Sheppard Nov. 27, 2007

Nov. 27, 2007

As agreed on yesterday's Council call, I promised to draft a short paper as a "straw man" listing those recommendations on GNSO reform that may be supportable by Council as a whole. Given the deadline is submission by 30 November I thought I'd better get a move on. Not surprisingly those listed are ones seeking: - improvements in policy development and timeline flexibility, - improvements in communications, - improvements in outreach - greater support for constituencies. I have left out proposals on structural change suspecting we will have differing views. On working groups, I am proposing a partial support, suspecting we mostly feel they will work for much policy work, but that tying our hands to have ONLY working groups for EVERY issue before us would be too inflexible. I hope I have captured areas of potential agreement. Your first comments please by November 25 after which time I'll edit a proposed final version. Comments can be as simple as - "yes I/we support" or can be proposals to strike one of the proposed areas of agreement. In that case, a word of explanation would be good to share. Philip

6 18

New Versions of IDNA Protocol Revision Proposals Posted
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Nov. 27, 2007

Nov. 27, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26nov07.htm An Important Step toward the Implementation of IDN Top-Level Domains: New Versions of IDNA Protocol Revision Proposals Posted 26 November 2007 Revised papers of the technical standards that define the implementation of IDNs — the standards are called IDNA — were recently released via the IETF editors. These revisions are an important step toward the delegation of IDN top-level domains. An informal expert panel, working as what the IETF calls a "design team," evaluated experiences gained in the implementation of the previous version of IDNA since its introduction in 2003, and identified several key areas of future work. These key areas were described in several documents that triggered a formal revision of the IDNA protocol. New versions of the internet-drafts proposing the revisions to the IDNA protocol have been released and are as follows: * http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-idnabis-issues-05.txt * http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-idnabis-protocol-02.txt * http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alvestrand-idna-bidi-01.txt * http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-03.txt The core components in the revision effort include: * definition of valid IDN labels, an inclusion-based model that clearly defines which characters will be available for IDNs (the current model is exclusion-based), and recognizes the implications of the Unicode handling of various scripts on use in IDNs; * elimination of confusing and non-reversible character mappings; * fixing an error in right-to-left error in Stringprep (a profile used to prepare IDNs in the IDNA protocol ), and eliminating Unicode version dependencies, thereby permitting more scripts to be used in IDNs now and in the future. The issues with the current IDN model that led to these revisions are discussed in RFC4690. This RFC discusses specific character issues where the same script is used in different languages, issues related to cases where languages can be expressed by using more than one script, issues involving bi-directional cases, and issues concerning the topic of visually confusing characters. ICANN urges the Internet technical community to take part in the final stages of this development work by reviewing this documentations and constructively commenting on it. The review is moving forward in accordance with standard IETF processes. The intention is to finalize this work and publish the new IDNA standard within the next two months -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS for GNSO Council Chair 22 Nov - 6 Dec 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Nov. 26, 2007

Nov. 26, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Pursuant to the ICANN bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.7 Section 3.7 The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair, for a term the GNSO Council specifies but not longer than one year, by written ballot or by action at a meeting. Any such selection must have affirmative votes comprising a majority of the votes of all the members of the GNSO Council. A. CALL for NOMINATIONS Thursday, 22 November 2007 to Thursday 6 December 2007 at 23:00 UTC. A formal nomination period, for the election of GNSO Council chair for the period 1 February 2008 until the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting in 2008 is now open for two weeks from Thursday, 22 November 2007 to Thursday 6 December 2007 ending at 23:00 UTC. All nominations should be accepted and seconded within this period. Only GNSO Council members are eligible to make nominations and second nominations. Please send all nominations and seconds to: gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org Nominations and seconds will be acknowledged and posted to the council list. B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING The voting period will be open from Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 15:00 UTC to Monday, 7 January 2008 at 15:00 UTC. C. VOTING PROCEDURE The voting will be by electronic ballot and the candidate receiving the majority of the votes will be elected as the chair. There will be a total of 27 votes cast. The winning candidate must receive at least 14 affirmative votes. In case of a tie, there will be a second round of voting. The rules governing the process are located at http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/names-proceduresv7.shtml , Section 13. D. GNSO COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC and the GAC do not vote. E. VOTING Voting will take place by secret e-mail ballot. 1. Ballots will be sent out individually to each GNSO Council members' e-mail address. 2. The ballots will come from tally[at]icann.org, so please check your spam filter. 3. Ballots should be filled out and returned to the e-mail address stated in the ballot. They should not be copied to any e-mail list. 4. At the scheduled time, the Secretariat will announce the results of the vote by sending a message to the <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mailing list. This announcement will include: a. The number of votes received by each candidate; b. The names of the GNSO Council members from whom ballots were received; and c. The confidential code number of each ballot and the candidate for whom it was voted. Item 4(c) will allow each GNSO Council member to double-check that his or her ballot was properly understood, but will not allow others to determine how the member voted. 5. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed. F. DISCLOSURE OF THE VOTING The Secretariat will announce the outcome of the voting at the close of the voting period. The GNSO Council will confirm the results of the voting at the scheduled Council meeting on 17 January 2008. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2